CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 3)

[ant1973]

monkfish1 said:

yes this ^^^^

Lots of hand wringing about the economic collapse, then decide to make it compulsory to wear masks in shops.

You couldnt make it up. Just hammer the last few nails into the coffin of the economy. Good works chaps.

And who is the Mr Brigden chap? If you have no income and no cash flow to bring people back, NOT bringing them back IS the only alternative to bankruptcy!

Edited by monkfish1 on Monday 13th July 14:02

Investing in commercial property carries some element of risk you say? Who knew? And we borrowed the money to do it as well... Nice safe income stream. Of course when public sector types (sorry - "key workers") start getting the bullet, the economics of this will become very real.

This is now a runaway train. We demand you go back to working less efficiently.. You could not make it up. Well done HMG for accelerating a trend that might have played out over years and compressing it into three months. Still, we protected the NHS....

[ant1973]

Condi said:

Elysium said:

This Govt seems to delight in briefing conflicting messages to the public. Somone clearly thinks this is some clever behavioural science stuff.

You think its as clever as that? I think that there is so little co-ordination, and Johnson/Cummings are so keen that decisions are centralised while admitting he is not a details man, that his opinion changes with the wind and he will say something to the press before it is discussed internally. How often has he contradicted his own Parliament, whether that be Hancock, Gove, or whoever? He is a populist politician elected on 1 policy now totally stuck because there is no overwhelming public opinion about the virus.

Masks = safe.
People in shops wearing masks = safe shops.
Safe shops = people returning to shops.

But:

Economy fecked = wasteful consumption unsafe.
Masks uncomfortable = miserable "experience" so let's just order from amazon.
Don't need to be in office = no need to use city centre retail
wearing masks = virus not gone away so unsafe.

They are complete halfwits if they think that wearing a mask is the difference between success and failure for retail and the high street.

Welcome to the law of unintended consequences when you behave irrationally.

[TameRacingDriver]

smashing said:

I've kind of given up now and just going to sit back and watch it burn.

From the above and other economic issues to the screaming mob baying for additional legislation on people who dare not wear masks i just can't be fked anymore.

+1

I've ran out of hope, and ran out of fks to give at this point. Doesn't seem as though there is anything left to look forward to right now. All because of a nasty cold...

[JagLover]

johnboy1975 said:

Is covid19 more dangerous than flu because its more powerful (for want of a better word) or more dangerous because there's no vaccine?

Actually, *IF* you could vaccinate, wouldn't the GFR be a hell of a lot lower than flu?

Well seasonal Flu has an IFR of between 0.1-0.2%. They are still working it out for Covid-19 but likely to be between 0.25-0.6%

Covid-19 may infect more people as well.

So no-one is saying Covid isn't dangerous, just lets keep a sense of perspective. If the extent of our actions for seasonal Flu is vaccinate the vulnerable then our response to a virus that is 2-3 times as dangerous shouldn't be reduce the economy to scorched earth.

Edited by JagLover on Monday 13th July 14:45

[Elysium]

ant1973 said:

Condi said:

Elysium said:

This Govt seems to delight in briefing conflicting messages to the public. Somone clearly thinks this is some clever behavioural science stuff.

You think its as clever as that? I think that there is so little co-ordination, and Johnson/Cummings are so keen that decisions are centralised while admitting he is not a details man, that his opinion changes with the wind and he will say something to the press before it is discussed internally. How often has he contradicted his own Parliament, whether that be Hancock, Gove, or whoever? He is a populist politician elected on 1 policy now totally stuck because there is no overwhelming public opinion about the virus.

Masks = safe.
People in shops wearing masks = safe shops.
Safe shops = people returning to shops.

But:

Economy fecked = wasteful consumption unsafe.
Masks uncomfortable = miserable "experience" so let's just order from amazon.
Don't need to be in office = no need to use city centre retail
wearing masks = virus not gone away so unsafe.

They are complete halfwits if they think that wearing a mask is the difference between success and failure for retail and the high street.

Welcome to the law of unintended consequences when you behave irrationally.

It amazes me that they are still able to find ways to make this worse.

I find the thought of compulsory mask wearing desperately depressing. For me it is almost worse than the darkest days of lockdown. As someone used to a high degree of freedom in my personal and professional life, the idea that a borderline halfwit like Hancock could introduce legislation dictating my every movement was tough to swallow.

Now we are on other side of that, with the knowledge that the threat is nowhere near as bad as we expected and that the prevalence of the virus has dwindled to three quarters of fk all, and this idiot now wants to force me to wear a 'face covering'.

[JagLover]

ant1973 said:

Masks = safe.
People in shops wearing masks = safe shops.
Safe shops = people returning to shops.

But:

Economy fecked = wasteful consumption unsafe.
Masks uncomfortable = miserable "experience" so let's just order from amazon.
Don't need to be in office = no need to use city centre retail
wearing masks = virus not gone away so unsafe.

They are complete halfwits if they think that wearing a mask is the difference between success and failure for retail and the high street.

Welcome to the law of unintended consequences when you behave irrationally.

The whole masks things is a complete mystery on that score.

If they make them compulsory for food retailers people will have to wear them though I would still be trying to avoid entering them. Most of the shopping in non-food retailers is discretionary and who is going to want to do it in a mask?. It might be focus group driven but no rational thought has gone into it.

[Dr Z]

bodhi said:

The Spruce Goose said:

JagLover said:

Yep that tt Neil Ferguson trying to stay relevant by telling the media what they want to hear.

Funny how he is relevant when it suits huh.

Anyway it was him and John Edmund's said the same and the stats also back it up.

Is that the Professor John Edmunds who was on Channel 4 News in March discussing how the only way to beat this was herd immunity?

Fine if he's changed his mind, but seems a bit harsh to have a go at the Govt for following his initial advice, not his updated advice from a month after the pandemic hit?

Also you say the stats back him up - fancy showing your working?

This is one piece of working:



From here:

https://bskiesresearch.wordpress.com/2020/05/12/th...

We have had over 39k people die after the April 8th (the notional 'peak'), and we had 8.5k deaths then, which demonstrates the scale of the epidemic here.

The No. 1 rule in epidemic control is act early. Dithering costs you money and lives.

No. 2 is layer several measures on top, don't introduce one after another. Lessons from the 1918 pandemic:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17684187/

[RTB]

johnboy1975 said:

Is covid19 more dangerous than flu because its more powerful (for want of a better word) or more dangerous because there's no vaccine?

Actually, *IF* you could vaccinate, wouldn't the GFR be a hell of a lot lower than flu?

Depends on how protective the vaccine is and whether it prevents infection or limits the disease but doesn't prevent transmission. Ironically a vaccine that protects against disease but doesn't prevent transmission could increase the case fatality rate as those at most risk (the elderly) are likely to have less protection provided by a vaccine, but a higher chance of contracting the disease because it will be more prevalent if the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission but prevents the vast majority from becoming cases, especially if we completely re-open once a vaccine is available.

Of course a vaccine could provide enough protection to all those it's administered to, to prevent severe illness, in which case the case fatality rate will drop considerably. We'll have more of an idea when the Phase 2b/Phase 3 trials read out in the over 70s cohorts that are being tested in the Oxford/AZ trial. Fingers crossed the vaccine at least modulates disease severity in the more vulnerable.

[bodhi]

Dr Z said:

bodhi said:

The Spruce Goose said:

JagLover said:

Yep that tt Neil Ferguson trying to stay relevant by telling the media what they want to hear.

Funny how he is relevant when it suits huh.

Anyway it was him and John Edmund's said the same and the stats also back it up.

Is that the Professor John Edmunds who was on Channel 4 News in March discussing how the only way to beat this was herd immunity?

Fine if he's changed his mind, but seems a bit harsh to have a go at the Govt for following his initial advice, not his updated advice from a month after the pandemic hit?

Also you say the stats back him up - fancy showing your working?

This is one piece of working:



From here:

https://bskiesresearch.wordpress.com/2020/05/12/th...

We have had over 39k people die after the April 8th (the notional 'peak'), and we had 8.5k deaths then, which demonstrates the scale of the epidemic here.

The No. 1 rule in epidemic control is act early. Dithering costs you money and lives.

No. 2 is layer several measures on top, don't introduce one after another. Lessons from the 1918 pandemic:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17684187/

Any working that relies on observational data rather than running a computer model? As my faith in those isn't particularly high after the Prof Ferguson 500k deaths debacle.

[Elysium]

bodhi said:

Dr Z said:

bodhi said:

The Spruce Goose said:

JagLover said:

Yep that tt Neil Ferguson trying to stay relevant by telling the media what they want to hear.

Funny how he is relevant when it suits huh.

Anyway it was him and John Edmund's said the same and the stats also back it up.

Is that the Professor John Edmunds who was on Channel 4 News in March discussing how the only way to beat this was herd immunity?

Fine if he's changed his mind, but seems a bit harsh to have a go at the Govt for following his initial advice, not his updated advice from a month after the pandemic hit?

Also you say the stats back him up - fancy showing your working?

This is one piece of working:



From here:

https://bskiesresearch.wordpress.com/2020/05/12/th...

We have had over 39k people die after the April 8th (the notional 'peak'), and we had 8.5k deaths then, which demonstrates the scale of the epidemic here.

The No. 1 rule in epidemic control is act early. Dithering costs you money and lives.

No. 2 is layer several measures on top, don't introduce one after another. Lessons from the 1918 pandemic:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17684187/

Any working that relies on observational data rather than running a computer model? As my faith in those isn't particularly high after the Prof Ferguson 500k deaths debacle.

I think this is just more random number generation.

National lockdowns are not a proven method of epidemic control. There is no evidence for their efficacy and no evidence that imposing one earlier would have made any difference at all.

My other observation is that we are entirely forgetting where we came in.

The lockdown was supposed to save hundreds of thousands of lives. That was the justification. Starting it earlier to save another 11,000 is a totally different proposition.

[ant1973]

Elysium said:

ant1973 said:

Condi said:

Elysium said:

This Govt seems to delight in briefing conflicting messages to the public. Somone clearly thinks this is some clever behavioural science stuff.

You think its as clever as that? I think that there is so little co-ordination, and Johnson/Cummings are so keen that decisions are centralised while admitting he is not a details man, that his opinion changes with the wind and he will say something to the press before it is discussed internally. How often has he contradicted his own Parliament, whether that be Hancock, Gove, or whoever? He is a populist politician elected on 1 policy now totally stuck because there is no overwhelming public opinion about the virus.

Masks = safe.
People in shops wearing masks = safe shops.
Safe shops = people returning to shops.

But:

Economy fecked = wasteful consumption unsafe.
Masks uncomfortable = miserable "experience" so let's just order from amazon.
Don't need to be in office = no need to use city centre retail
wearing masks = virus not gone away so unsafe.

They are complete halfwits if they think that wearing a mask is the difference between success and failure for retail and the high street.

Welcome to the law of unintended consequences when you behave irrationally.

It amazes me that they are still able to find ways to make this worse.

I find the thought of compulsory mask wearing desperately depressing. For me it is almost worse than the darkest days of lockdown. As someone used to a high degree of freedom in my personal and professional life, the idea that a borderline halfwit like Hancock could introduce legislation dictating my every movement was tough to swallow.

Now we are on other side of that, with the knowledge that the threat is nowhere near as bad as we expected and that the prevalence of the virus has dwindled to three quarters of fk all, and this idiot now wants to force me to wear a 'face covering'.

I think things will get better but I fear we have a long winter ahead of us. We're in too deep now. The reversing strategy was an option in early May but the sunk cost fallacy leaves us so deep in the hole that they will carry on a while yet. When I see Sturgeon on the tv wailing about there been 18 new cases of this, I realise we have lost the argument. It's just a question of how bad it's going to get. I think all we can do it wait.

[anonymous-user]

bodhi said:

Any working that relies on observational data rather than running a computer model? As my faith in those isn't particularly high after the Prof Ferguson 500k deaths debacle.

it was actually 250k but to sell it, the government decided to go with the 500k model, which was proved wrong. Anyone don't let facts get in front of argument.

[grumbledoak]

Dr Z said:

This is one piece of working:



From here:

https://bskiesresearch.wordpress.com/2020/05/12/th...

We have had over 39k people die after the April 8th (the notional 'peak'), and we had 8.5k deaths then, which demonstrates the scale of the epidemic here.

The No. 1 rule in epidemic control is act early. Dithering costs you money and lives.

No. 2 is layer several measures on top, don't introduce one after another. Lessons from the 1918 pandemic:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17684187/

A pair of Climate Change modellers?
https://bskiesresearch.wordpress.com/home-2/
Yeah, because they've got a solid reputation for prediction! Of Armageddon.


Alternately we could read the summary by Prof. Henderson (who oversaw the program that eradicated smallpox)
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi...
The whole paper is worth a read, but to point out

Henderson said:

There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza.

[bodhi]

The Spruce Goose said:

bodhi said:

Any working that relies on observational data rather than running a computer model? As my faith in those isn't particularly high after the Prof Ferguson 500k deaths debacle.

it was actually 250k but to sell it, the government decided to go with the 500k model, which was proved wrong. Anyone don't let facts get in front of argument.

Well that makes it OK then!

Out of interest, how are his predictions for Sweden coming along? Pretty sure he said they would have 60k+ deaths if they carried on that course of action - how did that stand up in the end?

[ant1973]

JagLover said:

ant1973 said:

Masks = safe.
People in shops wearing masks = safe shops.
Safe shops = people returning to shops.

But:

Economy fecked = wasteful consumption unsafe.
Masks uncomfortable = miserable "experience" so let's just order from amazon.
Don't need to be in office = no need to use city centre retail
wearing masks = virus not gone away so unsafe.

They are complete halfwits if they think that wearing a mask is the difference between success and failure for retail and the high street.

Welcome to the law of unintended consequences when you behave irrationally.

The whole masks things is a complete mystery on that score.

If they make them compulsory for food retailers people will have to wear them though I would still be trying to avoid entering them. Most of the shopping in non-food retailers is discretionary and who is going to want to do it in a mask?. It might be focus group driven but no rational thought has gone into it.

The people who wanted to be locked down now want to wear a mask. Our view is very much in the minority, I'm afraid. Sometimes the only way to win is not to play the game. HMG equally need us to play the game here and all it takes is a significant minority of people just to say "no thanks" for their strategy to fail. The recent desperation reflects that furlough is ending and I suspect loads of people are just going to sit at home until October and lots are going to be made redundant i.e. the worst of all worlds.

[RSTurboPaul]

Elysium said:

So Johnson is back on the masks in shops bandwagon today:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/13/bori...

Which makes you wonder why the fk they sent Gove out to tell everyone they would not be mandatory over the weekend.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53381000

This Govt seems to delight in briefing conflicting messages to the public. Somone clearly thinks this is some clever behavioural science stuff.

I am sick and tired of their bullst.

For what it is worth, I think compulsory masks are coming now. This Govt is the lowest of the low. They are beneath contempt.

I know it will likely go straight into the round filing cabinet, but I am seriously thinking about writing to Boris and telling him to sort his st out.

If he wants to be Churchillian, like some of the papers claim he does, he needs to stop dicking about and lead from the front, even if the position is not liked by a vocal part of society, like (AIUI) Churchill did.

[anonymous-user]

bodhi said:

Well that makes it OK then!

Out of interest, how are his predictions for Sweden coming along? Pretty sure he said they would have 60k+ deaths if they carried on that course of action - how did that stand up in the end?

i only interested in this country. The point was the government wasn't prepared and on the back foot, at least Sweden did what they did gusto and stuck to what they did without wishy washy ramblings and non nonsensical meaningless thinktank alert systems.

[RSTurboPaul]

JagLover said:

grumbledoak said:

Some interesting stuff by the ex director of the Swiss Institute for Immunology translated here:
https://medium.com/@vernunftundrichtigkeit/coronav...

He is quite opinionated on the whole "novel" and "no immunity" claims, plus some useful explanations on immune system and PCR tests.

Well worth a read

I hadn't read that link previously - 100% agreed, a very interesting read.

[RSTurboPaul]

sambucket said:

JagLover said:

That has been suggested for Japan, which has been barely affected.

Japan is quite a mystery.

Is that the whole of Japan in one photo?

[Donbot]

The biggest problem with the 'lockdown earlier' comments, is that in future lockdown will become preemptive. We have pandemic scares all the time, but we can't lock down all the time as the world would grind to a halt.

We can only hope that sensible lessons will be learned from this mess.